I'm also shocked that there are 150 charges against him. That just seems mind boggling to me. Not to mention that he is still facing civil charges in NSW and further police investigation (in NSW) that could lead to even more charges being laid.

I just heard on a news report that they sent five police to arrest him.How ridiculous! Did they think he was going to be violent?

QUOTE

'I believe that, from reading the warrant, he was invited to travel to Victoria to surrender himself prior to Christmas, he didn't do that,'' he told reporters. The spokesman described Mr Thomson's demeanour as calm.

They saw a heaven sent opportunity to make themselves look good, and accordingly went for it. With all the media in tow.

What I'm failing to understand, and as I said in the election thread, is why Craig Thomson didn't hand himself in once he knew there was enough evidence to be charged. Does he really think that little of the political party that nurtured him and has been remarkably good to him for most of his adult life, in the form of well paid union jobs, preselection for Parliament etc?

5 police officers for a heavy handed arrest and strip searched in prison?! WTF?! This is a white collar criminal not a frikkin' terrorist.

It's a political stunt organised by two police ministers of two Liberal states, with the full knowledge of Baillieu, O'Farrell and the mad monk himself. I'm not particularly a fan of Thompson but he is entitled to the presumption of innocence...he was granted bail, guess the magistrate didn't think too much of the police case at this early stage.....

If he's convicted it will be by trial by media and the good old court of public opinion...good luck getting the conviction past the court of appeals.....

Ummm... Not quite correct about the Magistrate...one of the conditions is he is not allowed to contact prostitutes which his lawyer say is ridiculous.... who by the way didn't even turn up for the bail hearing.. CT was left alone......don't think it was taken lightly by the court, they are serious charges...

Also he was arrested around 1 , appeared on Court just after 4, his lawyer was sitting in his office? And said he was doing something else? Pardon?

In my past life, a client would NEVER be left alone in Court, if you cant get to it, you send an associate or even an agent ... You know who is at Local Court, so easy to find one of the brethren already there....

the lawyer came across as rather colorful on breakfast TV, Today & sunrise this morning..???? to deflect from the real issues??? Like the money spent that rightfully belonged to those workers??? Regardless of who did or didn't authorize it's still been spent and is lost, the person in charge is always ultimately responsible

He was strip searched after his arrest. Stripped naked and searched by two corrective services officers. And the five police officers (yes five) who arrested him were allowed to observe the strip search.

Being search before entering a custodial centre is par for the course, all incoming prisoners get searched. And the fact that he was bailed doesn't have any relevance to the case, he was bailed as the magistrate obviously didn't think he was a flight risk.

Well I think it has some relevance, the way some media are reporting it, and some comments here on EB you would think he was the worst of the worst....he was going to flee, he's as guilty as sin etc etc.....yes there may be a presumption in favour of bail for fraud charges (I don't know tbh) but they are serious charges ....

Being search before entering a custodial centre is par for the course, all incoming prisoners get searched. And the fact that he was bailed doesn't have any relevance to the case, he was bailed as the magistrate obviously didn't think he was a flight risk.

It may be standard, but it does not always happen. And is it "par for the course" to allow five other officers to observe the strip search? Are detainees not afforded any respect or privacy?

It's a political stunt organised by two police ministers of two Liberal states, with the full knowledge of Baillieu, O'Farrell and the mad monk himself. I'm not particularly a fan of Thompson but he is entitled to the presumption of innocence...he was granted bail, guess the magistrate didn't think too much of the police case at this early stage.....

If he's convicted it will be by trial by media and the good old court of public opinion...good luck getting the conviction past the court of appeals.....

I know people who have been granted bail when they have killed someone due to drink driving with no licence. Because they were not a flight risk they were granted bail. To lay 149 charges means there has to be something there.

Also he was arrested around 1 , appeared on Court just after 4, his lawyer was sitting in his office? And said he was doing something else? Pardon?

In my past life, a client would NEVER be left alone in Court, if you cant get to it, you send an associate or even an agent ... You know who is at Local Court, so easy to find one of the brethren already there....

Could have something to do with Chris McArdle being based in Sydney, and the Court Mr Thomson appeared is a two hour drive from there? He probably knew he wouldn't make it in time.

His lawyer said yesterday on the ABC that one of the 150 charges was a charge against him for $12 worth of ice creams he'd purchased for staff. Whilst misappropriation doesn't have a 'level', perhaps most of the charges are small like this one?

The lawyer also said he had not been asked to go to Victoria to hand himself in. Apparently, that is false?

I know people who have been granted bail when they have killed someone due to drink driving with no licence. Because they were not a flight risk they were granted bail. To lay 149 charges means there has to be something there.

That's for a trial to decide....people have been acquitted before you know...just because charges are laid doesn't mean the prosecution will make its case ....

Prosecutor Lesley Taylor SC argued Thomson had not "uttered one word of remorse" and that anything less than an immediate jail term would be inadequate.
She maintained he had used the media and the shield of parliamentary privilege to falsely blame others.
Thomson's defence lawyer, Greg James QC, told the court his client's career and prospects have been destroyed and he now has a major depressive disorder.Mr James said Thomson had acted on impulse and obtained cash opportunistically when his marriage was breaking down and he "sought comfort elsewhere".
The court heard Thomson has been subjected to extremely intrusive media attention and his wife had also been harassed by photographers.
Mr James argued Thomson was suffering the consequences of his breach of trust far more than other white collar offenders, in part, because he had a vital casting vote in Parliament.
He said it was always a problem when courts have to sentence a public figure but he urged the magistrate not to ignore his career as a public servant.
"If he hadn't spent the money on prostitutes or pornographic movies then there was unlikely to have been concern," Mr James said.
He added that while it may not be socially acceptable to pay prostitutes, it was not illegal.
"He has not been convicted on spending money on prostitutes," he said.

So am I correct, that after sooooo many denials, yes he did use the money, no he wasn't framed, and yes, he did see prostitutes while he was still married?

Not being cheeky here, I just was surprised as there had been such (in spite of the evidence presented) a sold wall of denial (maybe I shouldn't have been surprised, I didn't necessarily believe the denials, but he was so consistent...)